literary transcript

 

XII

 

What can be Done?

 

We can be educated for freedom - much better educated for it than we are at present.  But freedom, as I have tried to show, is threatened from many directions, and these threats are of many different kinds - demographic, social, political, psychological.  Our disease has a multiplicity of cooperating causes and is not to be cured except by a multiplicity of cooperating remedies.  In coping with any complex human situation, we must take account of all the relevant factors, not merely of a single factor.  Nothing short of everything is ever really enough.  Freedom is menaced, and education for freedom is urgently needed.  But so are many other things - for example, social organization for freedom, birth control for freedom, legislation for freedom.  Let us begin with the last of these items.

      From the time of Magna Carta and even earlier, the makers of English law have been concerned to protect the physical freedom of the individual.  A person who is being kept in prison on grounds of doubtful legality has the right under the Common Law as clarified by the statute of 1679, to appeal to one of the higher courts of justice for a writ of habeas corpus.  This writ is addressed by a judge of the high court to a sheriff or jailer, and commands him, within a specified period of time, to bring the person he is holding in custody to the court for an examination of his case - to bring, be it noted, not the person's written complaint, nor his legal representatives, but his corpus, his body, the too too solid flesh which has been made to sleep on boards, to smell the fetid prison air, to eat the revolting prison food.  This concern with the basic condition of freedom - the absence of physical constraint - is unquestionably necessary, but is not all that is necessary.  It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free - to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national state, or of some private interest within the nation, wants him to think, feel and act.  There will never be such a thing as a writ of habeas mentem; for no sheriff or jailer can bring an illegally imprisoned mind into court, and no person whose mind had been made captive by the methods outlined in earlier chapters would be in a position to complain of his captivity.  The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative.  The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim.  To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free.  That he is not free is apparent only to other people.  His servitude is strictly objective.

      No, I repeat, there can never be such a thing as a writ of habeas mentem.  But there can be preventive legislation - an outlawing of the psychological slave trade, a statute for the protection of minds against the unscrupulous purveyors of poisonous propaganda, modelled on the statutes for the protection of bodies against the unscrupulous purveyors of adulterated food and dangerous drugs.  For example, there could and, I think, there should be legislation limiting the right of public officials, civil or military, to subject the captive audiences under their command or in their custody to sleep teaching.  There could and, I think, there should be legislation prohibiting the use of subliminal projection in public places or on television screens.  There could and, I think, there should be legislation to prevent political candidates not merely from spending more than a certain amount of money on their election campaigns, but also to prevent them from resorting to the kind of anti-rational propaganda that makes nonsense of the whole democratic process.

      Such preventive legislation might do some good; but if the great impersonal forces now menacing freedom continue to gather momentum, they cannot do much good for very long.  The best of constitutions and preventive laws will be powerless against the steadily increasing pressures of overpopulation and of the over-organization imposed by growing numbers and advancing technology.  The constitutions will not be abrogated and the good laws will remain on the statute book; but these liberal forms will merely serve to mask and adorn a profoundly illiberal substance.  Given unchecked overpopulation and over-organization, we may expect to see in the democratic countries a reversal of the process which transformed England into a democracy, while retaining all the outward forms of a monarchy.  Under the relentless thrust of accelerating overpopulation and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms - elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest - will remain.  The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism.  All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days.  Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial - but democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense.  Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained élite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit.

      How can we control the vast impersonal forces that now menace our hard-won freedoms?  On the verbal level and in general terms, the question may be answered with the utmost ease.  Consider the problem of overpopulation.  Rapidly mounting human numbers are pressing ever more heavily on natural resources.  What is to be done?  Obviously we must, with all possible speed, reduce the birth rate to the point where it does not exceed the death rate.  At the same time we must, with all possible speed, increase food production, we must institute and implement a world-wide policy for conserving our soils and our forests, we must develop practical substitutes, preferably less dangerous and less rapidly exhaustible than uranium, for our present fuels; and, while husbanding our dwindling resources of easily available minerals, we must work out new and not too costly methods for extracting these minerals from ever poorer and poorer ores - the poorest ore of all being sea water.  But all this, needless to say, is almost infinitely easier said than done.  The annual increase of numbers should be reduced.  But how?  We are given two choices - famine, pestilence and war on the one hand, birth control on the other.  Most of us choose birth control - and immediately find ourselves confronted by a problem that is simultaneously a puzzle in physiology, pharmacology, sociology, psychology and even theology.  'The Pill' has not yet been perfected.  When and if it is perfected, how can it be distributed to the many hundreds of millions of potential mothers (or, if it is a pill that works upon the male, potential fathers) who will have to take it if the birth-rate of the species is to be reduced?  And, given existing social customs and the forces of cultural and psychological inertia, how can those who ought to take the pill, but don't want to, be persuaded to change their minds?  And what about the objections on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to any form of birth control except the so-called Rhythm Method - a method, incidentally, which has proved, hitherto, to be almost completely ineffective in reducing the birth-rate of those industrially backward societies where such a reduction is most urgently necessary?  And these questions about the hypothetically perfect Pill must be asked, with as little prospect of eliciting satisfactory answers, about the chemical and mechanical methods of birth control already available.

      When we pass from the problems of birth control to the problems of increasing the available food supply and conserving our natural resources, we find ourselves confronted by difficulties not perhaps quite so great, but still enormous.  There is the problem, first of all, of education.  How soon can the innumerable peasants and farmers, who are now responsible for raising most of the world's supply of food, be educated into improving their methods?  And when and if they are educated, where will they find the capital to provide them with the machines, the fuel and lubricants, the electric power, the fertilizers and the improved strains of food-plants and domestic animals, without which the best agricultural education is useless?  Similarly, who is going to educate the human race in the principles and practice of conservation?  And how are the hungry peasant-citizens of a country whose population and demands for food are rapidly rising, be prevented from 'mining the soil'?  And, if they can be prevented, who will pay for their support while the wounded and exhausted earth is being gradually nursed back, if that is still feasible, to health and restored to fertility?  Or consider the backward societies that are now trying to industrialize.  If they succeed, who is to prevent them, in their desperate effort to catch up and keep up, from squandering the planet's irreplaceable resources as stupidly and wantonly as was done, and is still being done, by their forerunners in the race?  And when the day of reckoning comes, where, in the poorer countries, will anyone find the scientific manpower and the huge amounts of capital that will be required to extract the indispensable minerals from ores in which their concentration is too low, under existing circumstances, to make extraction technically feasible or economically justifiable?  It may be that, in time, a practical answer to all these questions can be found.  But in how much time?  In any race between human numbers and natural resources, time is against us.  By the end of the present [twentieth] century, there may, if we try very hard, be twice as much food on the world's markets as there is today.  But there will also be about twice as many people, and several billions of these people will be living in partially industrialized countries and consuming ten times as much power, water, timber and irreplaceable minerals as their parents are consuming now.  In a word, the food situation will be as bad as it is today, and the raw materials situation will be considerably worse.

      To find a solution to the problem of over-organization is hardly less difficult than to find a solution to the problem of natural resources and increasing numbers.  On the verbal level and in general terms, the answer is perfectly simple.  Thus, it is a political axiom that power follows property.  But it is now a historical fact that the means of production are fast becoming the monopolistic property of Big Business and Big Government.  Therefore, if you believe in democracy, make arrangements to distribute property as widely as possible.

      Or take the right to vote.  In principle, it is a great privilege.  In practice, as recent history has repeated shown, the right to vote, by itself, is not guarantee of liberty.  Therefore, if you wish to avoid dictatorship by plebiscite, break up modern society's vast, machine-like collectives into self-governing, voluntarily cooperating groups, capable of functioning outside the bureaucratic systems of Big Business and Big Government.

      Overpopulation and over-organization have produced the modern metropolis, in which a fully human life of multiple personal relationships has become almost impossible.  Therefore, if you wish to avoid the spiritual impoverishment of individuals and whole societies, leave the metropolis and revive the small country community, or alternatively humanize the metropolis by creating within its network of mechanical organizations the urban equivalents of small country communities, in which individuals can meet and cooperate as complete persons, not as the mere embodiments of specialized functions.

      All this is obvious today and, indeed, was obvious fifty years ago.  From Hilaire Belloc to Mr Mortimer Adler, from the early apostles of cooperative credit unions to the land reformers of modern Italy and Japan, men of goodwill have for generations been advocating the decentralization of economic power and the widespread distribution of property.  And how many ingenious schemes have been propounded for the dispersal of production, for a return to small scale 'village industry'.  And then there were Dubreuil's elaborate plans for giving a measure of autonomy and initiative to the various departments of a single large industrial organization.  There were the Syndicalists, with their blueprints for a stateless society organized as a federation of productive groups under the auspices of the trade unions.  In America, Arthur Morgan and Baker Brownell have set forth the theory and described the practice of a new kind of community living on the village and small town level.

      Professor Skinner of Harvard has set forth a psychologist's view of the problem in his Walden Two, a Utopian novel about a self-sustaining and autonomous community so scientifically organized that nobody is ever led into anti-social temptation and, without resort to coercion or undesirable propaganda, everyone does what he or she ought to do, and everyone is happy and creative.  In France, during and after the Second World War, Marcel Barbu and his followers set up a number of self-governing, non-hierarchical communities of production, which were also communities for mutual aid and fully human living.  And meanwhile, in London, the Peckham Experiment has demonstrated that it is possible, by coordinating health services with the wider interests of the group, to create a true community even in a metropolis.

      We see, then, that the disease of over-organization has been clearly recognized, that various comprehensive remedies have been prescribed and that experimental treatments of symptoms have been attempted here and there, often with considerable success.  And yet, in spite of all this preaching and this exemplary practice, the disease grows steadily worse.  We know that it is unsafe to allow power to be concentrated in the hands of a ruling oligarchy; nevertheless power is in fact being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.  We know that, for most people, life in a huge modern city is anonymous, atomic, less than fully human; nevertheless the huge cities grow steadily huger and the pattern of urban-industrial living remains unchanged.  We know that, in a very large complex society, democracy is almost meaningless except in relation to autonomous groups of manageable size; nevertheless more and more of every nation's affairs are managed by the bureaucrats of Big Government and Big Business.  It is only too evident that, in practice, the problem of over-organization is almost as hard to solve as the problem of overpopulation.  In both cases we know what ought to be done; but in neither case have we been able, as yet, to act effectively upon our knowledge.

      At this point we find ourselves confronted by a very disquieting question: Do we really wish to act upon our knowledge?  Does a majority of the population think it worthwhile to take a good deal of trouble, in order to halt and, if possible, reverse the current drift towards totalitarian control of everything?  In the United States - and America is the prophetic image of the rest of the urban-industrial world as it will be a few years from now - recent public opinion polls have revealed that an actual majority of young people in their teens, the voters of tomorrow, have no faith in democratic institutions, see no objection to the censorship of unpopular ideas, do not believe that government of the people by the people is possible, and would be perfectly content, if they can continue to live in the style to which the boom has accustomed them, to be ruled, from above, by an oligarchy of assorted experts.  That so many of the well-fed young television-watchers in the world's most powerful democracy should be so completely indifferent to the idea of self-government, so blankly uninterested in freedom of thought and the right to dissent, is distressing, but not too surprising.  'Free as a bird', we say, and envy the winged creatures for their power of unrestricted movement in all the three dimensions.  But, alas, we forget the dodo.  Any bird that has learned how to grub up a good living without being compelled to use its wings will soon renounce the privilege of flight and remain forever grounded.  If the bread is supplied regularly and copiously three times a day, many of them will be perfectly content to live by bread alone - or at least by bread and circuses alone.  'In the end', says the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky's parable, 'in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us."'  And when Alyosha Karamazov asks his brother, the teller of the story, if the Grand Inquisitor is speaking ironically, Ivan answers: 'Not a bit of it!  He claims it as a merit for himself and his Church that they have vanquished freedom and done so to make men happy.'  Yes, to make men happy: 'for nothing', the Inquisitor insists, 'has ever been more insupportable for a man or a human society than freedom.'  Nothing, except the absence of freedom; for when things go badly, and the rations are reduced and the slave drivers step up their demands, the grounded dodos will clamour again for their wings - only to renounce them, yet once more, when times grow better and the dodo-farmers become more lenient and generous.  The young people who now think so poorly of democracy may grow up to become fighters for freedom.  The cry of 'Give me television and hamburgers, but don't bother me with the responsibilities of liberty', may give place, under altered circumstances, to the cry of 'Give me Liberty or give me death'.  If such a revolution takes place, it will be due in part to the operation of forces over which even the most powerful rulers have very little control, in part to the incompetence of those rulers, their inability to make effective use of the mind-manipulating instruments with which science and technology have supplied, and will go on supplying, the would-be tyrant.  Considering how little they knew and how poorly they were equipped, the Grand Inquisitors of earlier times did remarkably well.  But their successors, the well-informed, thoroughly scientific dictators of the future, will undoubtedly be able to do a great deal better.  The Grand Inquisitor reproaches Christ with having called upon men to be free and tells Him that 'we have corrected Thy work and founded it upon miracle, mystery and authority'.  But miracle, mystery and authority are not enough to guarantee the indefinite survival of a dictatorship.  In my fable of Brave New World, the dictators had added science to the list and thus were able to enforce their authority by manipulating the bodies of embryos, the reflexes of infants, and the minds of children and adults.  And instead of merely talking about miracles and hinting symbolically at mysteries, they were able, by means of drugs, to give their subjects the direct experience of mysteries and miracles - to transform mere faith into ecstatic knowledge.   The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries.  Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation.  In the past free-thinkers and revolutionaries were often the products of the most piously orthodox education.  This is not surprising.  The methods employed by orthodox educators were and still are extremely inefficient.  Under a scientific dictator education will really work - with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution.  There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.

      Meanwhile there is still freedom left in the world.  Many young people, it is true, do not seem to value freedom.  But some of us still believe that, without freedom, human beings cannot become fully human and that freedom is therefore supremely valuable.  Perhaps the forces that now menace freedom are too strong to be resisted for very long.  It is still our duty to do whatever we can to resist them.